Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Good morning. You are very welcome, Tom. Tom Burns is the chairperson of the Driving Instructors National Association Council. Are you based in Northern Ireland, Tom?

Mr Tom Burns (Driving Instructors National Association Council): That is correct, Minister.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Chair.

Mr Burns: Chair — right.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I remind everyone that the session is being recorded by Hansard, and a transcript will be included in the Committee report on the Bill.

Mr Burns, we all have your submission — your written paper — but will you give us an overview for five or 10 minutes? Members will ask you questions afterwards. Thank you.

Mr Burns: That is no problem, Chair. One of the main concerns is the proposal to reduce the minimum age for a learner driver to 16 and a half. In general, driving instructors have not been convinced of any safety merits in that. It is totally out of sync with the rest of the United Kingdom, which gives rise to various legal issues: for example, somebody from Northern Ireland is 17 and a bit and has a full licence but is at university in Scotland; or could a person go to England and take a test at 17? Legislation allows vice versa tests for motorbikes and cars between here and England etc.

There are various things that cause great concern about that proposal. Number one is the fact that there is no scientific or safety information that reducing the minimum age to 16 and a half will have any benefit. Other countries have discussed learning to drive at age 16, but, in the vast majority of those countries, people learn to drive in automatic cars. Believe me, as an instructor who has taught people to drive in automatic and manual cars, I can tell you that teaching somebody in an automatic is a gift compared with trying to teach somebody in a manual car in which they constantly drop the clutch and stall. I do not think that the comparison relays. Plus, in a lot of the countries where people are allowed to drive at the age of 16, the roads and parking spaces are significantly larger and wider than in this small country, which has a reduced motorway space and where most of the other roads are quite small.

No one has convinced us of any of the merits of reducing the minimum age to 16 and a half. We do not see any reason for bringing about legislation needlessly. There is a recession and legislation costs money. We do not see any merit in bringing down the age to 16 and a half, which would put us out of sync with the rest of the UK.

We feel that consultation papers are being misread and misinterpreted. The reason given to us for the reduction to 16 and a half was that it was supposed to be a compromise. At no stage in the consultation did driving instructors say that they wanted that reduction. The consultation paper asked a question about reducing the age, and driving instructors commented that, if it came about — there had been talk about the United Kingdom changing the age and there is some thought in Europe about changing the age — we would not want anybody to take a test before the age of 17. If you read on in the consultation responses, you will see that we were adamant that we were quite happy for the age to stay at 17. We were told that this was a compromise, but we told the Department that we had not asked for a compromise; we had never asked for the minimum age to be reduced to 16. So, to date, we have been given no reason whatsoever for a minimum age of 16 and half being introduced. We think that it is a total waste of time and that the current legislation for age 17 is sufficient. That is one of our main bugbears.

There have been amendments to the legislation but, originally, the other thing about the consultation and the proposed graduated driving licence (GDL) was that we had to point out to Minister Attwood that the legislation as proposed would mean that every learner, no matter what their age, would have to wait for 12 months before they could take a test. At that time, we pointed out to Minister Attwood that that did not make sense because a lot of driving instructors offer intensive/crash courses — I do not mean crashing into people.

I will give you an example: a pregnant lady knows that she will need childcare for her new baby and may have to go out of her way to leave her child off on the way to work etc. You get an idea of what I am talking about. Are we supposed to say to that lady, "Sorry, madam, you cannot do a test until you have had your licence for 12 months"? That does not make sense. In a time of recession, when people are trying to better themselves and trying to get a promotion or a new job, they would be told that they are unable to take a job with a company car because they cannot do their test for 12 months. That does not make sense either. If someone wants to move to the country, where there are no buses or whatever the case might be, they will also be told that they will have to wait 12 months.

I was involved in a different scenario a few years go. A gentleman came to me at the end of January and told me that he was emigrating to Australia at the end of March and that he had never turned a steering wheel in his life. He asked me whether there was any way that I could get him through his driving test. I told him that I could but that he would be out every day learning to drive. He booked the test for the end of February, which meant that, had he failed, he would at least have the opportunity to take the test again before he emigrated. As he was out every day, he passed his test and, if I may say so, he did so very successfully. In the situation that we are talking about, I would have had to tell him that it could not be done and that he would have to wait for 12 months.

So, the reduction of the minimum age to 16 and a half does not make sense — there is no rhyme or reason to it — and the provision for waiting for 12 months makes no sense whatsoever. Also, the 12-month provision does not mean that the person has to take driving lessons for 12 months; only that they have to have a licence for 12 months. As some of your esteemed colleagues around the table will know, several years ago, there was a rather farcical situation in the Republic of Ireland, when people were told that, because there was a backlog of driving tests, anybody who had had a driving licence in their drawer for a certain length of time could be considered to have passed their test. Is that what we want in Northern Ireland? Of course not. We want sensible legislation whereby people are properly trained to be safe on the roads. We do not want people sitting on a driving licence and, one month before the year expires, coming to driving instructors and saying that they have to get them through their test because they have had their licence for 12 months. It just does not make sense.

It is all about the quality of teaching; it is not about the quantity. Someone might take 20 hours of driving lessons, listen to everything that you say, be absolutely superb and could be the next Formula 1 champion. It is simple as that. On the other hand, you could find somebody for whom, even after 200 hours of driving lessons, it will be a long struggle.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): It would be costly as well.

Mr Burns: Yes. However, as I often say to people who talk about cost, a driving lesson, in which an individual is picked up from home and uses a car that is properly insured and maintained, is exceptionally good value for money in comparison with a violin lesson, horse-riding lesson or piano lesson.

Mrs Overend: I feel such a fool.

Mr Burns: I do not know about that. We pay taxes on the money that we receive, which is also good for the economy.

Another proposal is for restrictions, curfews and so on. We, and, I think, a lot of the politicians, could see that this would not happen in Northern Ireland. As you well know, many young people are involved in the hospitality trade —

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): The curfew is out.

Mr Burns: Yes, I know that it is, but we complained bitterly about that. There is still the aspect of the age of the people who will be allowed in a car and their relationship with the driver. I heard the word "enforcement" being used quite effectively around the table here in the taxi debate. It is another enforcement issue. Daily, I see people smoking or using their mobile phone while driving company cars or vans, including council vehicles, and nothing happens about it, so I do not really see how the police have the ability to enforce such a proposal.

Say, for example, that, on a Saturday night, three young people other than the driver are in the car and they all say, "I am his brother." When asked for ID, they say that they have none on them. On paper, it is a brilliant idea because we know, statistically, that, if there is an accident, the more young people there are in a car at one time, the greater the chance of fatalities or serious injuries, and there is the chance of people playing about, loud music et cetera. We understand that. We have been doing this job for an awfully long time. Our issue is with the practicalities and the enforcement. As I said, there is no point producing legislation, which costs money, if, no matter how good that legislation is, it is unenforceable.

Cigarette packs now have, "Cigarettes kill", written on them. The only other option is to ban them completely. You have to educate people. As we have said before, we should forget about reactive legislation. If we are to produce legislation, let us have proactive legislation, which will prevent the horse bolting from the stable, and not wait until a child lies seriously injured or dead on the road before saying, "Well, they should not have been in the car with that individual because they were not allowed to be there." That is our idea.

If legislation is necessary, good legislation would make it compulsory that learners learn on a motorway. One definite point of such legislation should be the removal of the 45 mph speed limit. A lot of people do not realise that, in England, Scotland and Wales, learners are not restricted to 45 mph, so instructors there teach at 60 mph and at 70 mph on a dual carriageway. Our 45 mph speed limit has not produced any miraculous reduction in casualties. It would be far better to teach at the higher speeds. From my experience and that of our members, some of us have tried to encourage people to take motorway lessons and either charged them nothing — just to prove that we are nice guys — or a reduced rate. We are lucky if one in 10 takes us up on it. Of every 100 people who pass a driving test in Northern Ireland, you are lucky if 10 would take up that offer. In fact, the number is much lower than that. So, people who pass the test have no experience whatsoever of driving on a motorway. A lot of people with an R-plate on the back of their car overtake you at 80 mph when you are doing 60 mph — you have seen them yourselves. It would be far better that they learn to drive at the higher speeds. As we have often said —

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Or you are stuck behind them and try to overtake.

Mr Burns: Yes, and that also causes trouble and problems. Try driving at 45 mph on the motorway when traffic is flowing fast. Try moving lanes. Try joining the motorway. It is the most dangerous thing that you can possibly do. The 45 mph speed limit was set up as a test to see what would happen. It just seemed to get stuck in the legislation and stayed here forever. We would like parity with GB. Another point is that when people pass their driving test here and are restricted to 45 mph, they can jump on a boat, go to England and do not have to legally display an R-plate or stick to 45 mph. So, a day after their driving test, they are travelling on the M26 at 70 mph because they are going to university and daddy has bought them a car.

Those are the main bones of contention: the minimum age of 16 and a half and the 12-month probationary period for people who may, for example, be talented drivers. The Department told us that it was talking about putting in certain exemptions so that someone could say, for example, "I am expecting a baby, so I want to do my test earlier". More legislation and paperwork does not make sense.

There needs to be proper instruction, properly tested. The driving test itself needs to be looked at. It is too easy. Maybe, some people here failed their driving test, but, believe me, it is too easy. It has not really changed. There have been a few little amendments to it over the years, which, to be honest with you, have nothing to do with driving ability. There are other more important things out there. This is a rhetorical question, so I am not expecting anybody to put their hand up: does anybody here understand or know what a forward stop line is? Just think about that. Do not answer.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I have no idea.

Mr Burns: OK.

Most of the individuals round this table have a driving licence, but people do not know about or understand the new road system because it has not been broadcast. Do you know what is supposed to happen according to the Department? You are supposed to read the Highway Code, which, of course, you all have and take to bed every night with your cup of cocoa.

There has to be information for the public. New drivers are probably more up to date with road legislation than people who have had their licences for 10, 20 or 30 years.

Most of us think that we know how to go round a roundabout. I also instruct motorcyclists. I taught a police officer who was taking compulsory basic training (CBT), which is now a requirement in law, because he wants to do his motorbike licence test and then become a motorcycle police officer. The basis of CBT is good, but that is beside the point — there are other issues. I brought him to Bells Bridge roundabout at the top of the Cregagh Road. Part of training on the roundabout is that you cannot train somebody while they are going round the roundabout because you have only a radio to talk to them. So, you stop the bike and get off. You talk about the various sections, the position you should be in, what you should look at et cetera. We were standing. Both of us were wearing yellow vests and white helmets and looking very official. The number of people who slammed on their brakes was quite unbelievable. They thought that we were police officers.

The whole point of the exercise was for him to identify the number of people approaching a roundabout in the wrong lane, with the wrong signal and with no lane discipline, as it is called, which is drifting in front of other vehicles et cetera. I said to him, "Before we start this exercise, I am telling you now that you will be lucky if one person in 10 does it right." I was proved correct.

Lots and lots of people think that they are good drivers. How do know that you are a good driver? When you look in the mirror, you think that you are good-looking, but somebody else has to tell you whether you are good-looking or not.

The problem is education. That is why, this morning, I was looking at the statistics. You will find that it is not young people who are getting killed at the minute. Recently, we have had two fatalities: a 17-year-old girl who was in a car and an 18-year-old student who was knocked down by a 29-year-old, I believe. That person was not in the 17-24 age group that we were talking about. It was the18-year-old who, unfortunately, was killed. I do not know the background to it.

You will find that, with motorcycles, there are "born-again bikers". That has nothing to do with religion. These people had a motorcycle licence when they were 17 or 18 years old, have not ridden a motorbike in maybe 15 or 20 years, have a bit of money now and have gone out and bought themselves a bike. They do not realise the capabilities of a modern bike. Today's modern bike is what the GP guys were using maybe not even 10 years ago. So they are on the road riding bikes capable of doing nought to 100 mph in first gear. Think about that: first gear. You try getting your car to go to 30 mph in first gear.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): You are scaring me. My oldest son has just passed his motorbike test.

Mr Burns: Has he? People out there do not know the Highway Code. They do not know how to do certain things, but they think that they know. In many cases, it is these people — the experienced drivers — who are causing accidents and problems.

We need public education for people who have just got their learner licence. Some are young people, but, as I said to the Committee, others are middle-aged people who suddenly decide to drive. I have even had elderly people in their 60s whose partner has died. There is a car sitting at the door and they have said, "The car is lying there. I am dependent on the car to get my shopping. I need to learn to drive." So, "learner" does not mean a 17-year-old or, in the case of this legislation, a 16-and-a-half-year-old. Learner means someone who has a provisional licence. Everybody is different. I am sure that there are things that you are very capable of, Chair, that another member of your family may not be able to do, just as there are things that members of your family can do that make you say, "Here, you do it. You are better than I am at that", and it is exactly the same in driving. There are all sorts of standards of drivers.

We have called for a driver MOT. Why have an MOT in Northern Ireland for a vehicle that is four years old or older? About 99% of all road traffic collisions (RTCs) are caused by driver error of some sort, whether that be through drink-driving, speeding or whatever. It is nothing to do with the vehicle. Vehicles are tested every year. We do not oppose that, but we are saying that every driver should have to come back for some sort of classroom training, in the same way that people who have committed an offence are being encouraged to do. Some people, rather than take the penalty points, will go to the classroom and, in some cases, have to go on a test drive and so on. That is a sensible way to go. If we want to have legislation, let us have sensible legislation. Let us have legislation that will do something, as opposed to, unfortunately, having legislation that we feel is a waste of time.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Thank you, Mr Burns. I think that you have put forward a lot of very sensible arguments. We are scrutinising the Bill and will very soon talk to the Department. Someone had put forward the concept, I think in the last briefing, that when a learner driver goes to an instructor, there should be a preliminary assessment of what that person needs to learn: for example, some people may already be good at driving a tractor.

Mr Burns: Truthfully, Chair, any good driving instructor does that in the first lesson: you ask questions and get the person to demonstrate. Just because someone says that they can ride a motorcycle does not mean that they can. I had one gentleman tell me that he could ride a 1500cc motorcycle. I could not figure out what a 1500cc motorcycle was because I do not know of any. I said, "OK", but I do not take for granted what somebody tells me. So, I put him on a 125cc motorcycle. The front tyre was against a wall because that is how you demonstrate whether you have clutch control: if you let go of the clutch, you do not go anywhere. He let go of the clutch and went up the wall. I said, "I am sorry, sir. You must not have thought about this before you had your cornflakes".

Any good instructor takes their life in their hands with a lunatic, and, believe me, there are lunatics out there who should not have a provisional driving licence. I think that the Department is coming round to the fact that there should be some sort of psychological profiling of people before they get a licence. I think that it is coming to that, seriously, because we do get people who are demented — they are totally delusional. They just believe that they can drive. I had one such incident when a grandmother was passed over to me — this is a true story — by another instructor.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Just be careful with ageism.

Mr Burns: Yes, but, you see, I am old enough to be a grandfather — I know that I do not look it, but that is beside the point.

Mr I McCrea: Somebody has to tell you that you do not look it.

Mr Burns: Exactly. I am told that frequently.

You will find out the relevance of her being a grandmother in a wee second. The first thing that she asked me was, "When are you putting me in for my driving test?", which is a common question. I told her that I needed to see what she had been taught and what she was able to do. She said to me, "I am a good driver. I drive my own car.". I asked her what she meant , and she said, "I take the kids to school. I do this, that and the other". When I asked who sat beside her, she said, "Nobody sits beside me; I can do it myself.". This is not uncommon either, I might add. She was not the first that I have come across.

As we proceeded up the road, she nearly took every mirror off every car, and I had to keep adjusting the steering because she was going to take my mirror off. We stopped and I said, "Look, you have a bit of a problem with what is called spatial awareness. If you just stare straight ahead of you, you are totally unaware of what is happening on this side. You have to see what is happening". She said, "Well, my grandson thinks that I am a brilliant driver and that I should be applying for my test". This is true. When I asked what driving experience her grandson had, she said, "My grandson is eight years old." That is a true story. One of these days, I will write a book. I will send you the first copy, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Yes. It would be interesting to read. I am sure that there are lots of good stories.

Mr Burns: Seriously, that is the sort of problem out there. Some people are delusional about what they can and cannot do, and others complain about the amount that they are spending. When asked, "Do you think that you can run a car for £50 a week?", they ask me what I mean. I tell them, "Not only do you have to buy, tax and insure the car; you have to put fuel in it." My car takes £70 to fill. Believe me, it is brought to the petrol station practically every day to be filled. People think of a driving licence as a right rather than a privilege and something that they have to work to. That is what it boils down to.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): You raised a point about being out of parity with the rest of the UK. We should ask the Department about that.

Mr Burns: It does not make sense.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): What about Ireland? Is it the same in the Republic of Ireland, Cathal?

Mr Boylan: Sorry, Chair?

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Is it the same?

Mr Burns: He is looking up his numbers on the lottery.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): You still have to be 17 —

Mr Boylan: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): — to get a driving licence there.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Tom. It is good to see you again. My first question is this: what is a forward stop line?

Mr Burns: Remember that this is being recorded. Some time ago, some of you will have noticed that a little green box appeared in front of traffic lights. Subsequently, in most cases — I do not think that it happened in every case, so that has to be taken up with Roads Service — a white bicycle symbol appeared as well. As far as I know, they started off in Bangor. People in Bangor were totally bemused and thought that they were alien landings, crop circles or something.

Then, they appeared in Belfast, but there was no public announcement of what they were or how to handle them. I was interviewed by one of the news channels outside Queen's University. Most of you will be familiar with Stranmillis and University Road etc. I said to the interviewer, "Look, rather than me answering questions, let's watch the public and see how they handle the situation, because they don't know what it's about". The whole purpose is that a white line applies to the car driver, the truck driver, the motorcyclist or whatever; the green box is for the safety of the cyclist, who has an advanced stop line. We stood there like complete idiots while every member of the public got it wrong and stopped in the green box. Some crept up beside a car that had stopped in it, looked at the line and thought, "Well, they're in it, so I'm probably allowed in it", so in they went. The worst scenario was that cyclists did not know what it was for. They cycled straight through it, stopped on top of the crossing at the bottom of Stranmillis, just in the "V", and the public had to walk round the cyclists in the green box to get across to Queen's University, which was rather amusing.

That is an example of why everybody should be encouraged to read the Highway Code. There is always something new coming. When you are a learner driver, you should not just be encouraged to read it; a decent instructor will bring you out of your normal area to let you experience different scenarios. I cannot speak for everybody, but good instructors will try to allow people to drive from home to work or from work back to home to give them an idea of what the traffic is like etc. You would try to bring people to strange roundabouts that they may or may not encounter. A classic example — Pam will be very knowledgeable about this — is the "V" junction in the middle of Glengormley, where there is a double set of traffic lights. People do not understand what they are for, and they do not read the road signs according to where they are placed. The right lane is for taking the right fork. The number of people who shoot down the Antrim line when they see a green light is unbelievable. There is a red light for going down the Antrim line or turning left up the Hightown Road. They do not understand. It is people who have had their licence for maybe 30 years doing that.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I find that junction really confusing.

Mr Burns: Yes, it is totally confusing. The left lane is for going up the Hightown Road or going out the Antrim line. You are waiting for the left block of lights to appear. Anything on the right, be it red, amber or green, applies to the traffic on the right.

Then people get totally confused when there is a single set of lights with a little box or boxes with arrows in. People get totally confused by that. They do not know what to do. They do not know whether they are allowed to go. People are totally confused by a green light, because you were taught at primary school that green light means "Go", and it does not; it means that you can proceed if the junction is clear and safe. Having done that, you also have to be clear that there are no vulnerable people such as cyclists coming through.

Mrs Cameron: I think that you have convinced us with the education argument.

Mr Burns: Education, education, education.

Mrs Overend: Following on from that, how do you feel that education should be increased? What format should that take? How should that be imposed? What ideas do you have around that?

Mr Burns: Interestingly enough, DINAC had suggested to Roads Service, to the roads safety part of DOE, that we should be more involved because, at the minute, any education in schools etc is done by Department staff or PSNI. With no disrespect, none of them have ever taught anyone to drive in their lives. It is all very well writing a cookbook, but have you actually cooked?

We are actively involved in a programme in which a booklet, leaflets and various prompt cards are being produced that give real-life scenarios that could be used as teaching aides. I will not mention too many details, because this is still in the early stages, but there is the story of a girl who had not long passed her driving test and was coming up to her eighteenth birthday. She was killed in her car. The reason given by the PSNI was that she was going far too fast to be able to control the vehicle. Her parents are in the book, and there is a picture of the girl, and she was a lovely-looking wee girl, and you could relate to it and say, "Look at that wee girl. She is not here anymore". That, we feel, is going to be beneficial.

However, the problem, as I have already stated, is that it is not just the learners that you have to worry about. Statistics are telling you that it is not the 17-24 year olds who are going out and getting killed; it is the people who have had their licence for a long time.

I feel sometimes that young people get a raw deal. It appears that they are bad at everything and that everything that they do is wrong. They are not; they are the future politicians who are going to be sitting around this table. Let us give them a bit of a break. Where young people have intelligence and are able to understand and work things out, give them credit for that. It does not matter whether they are 17 or 70, there are stupid people out there, there are ill-mannered people out there, there are people who you want not want to have on your Christmas list out there driving cars. So, there is that aspect of it, and that booklet is being looked at.

We have also had discussions as regards instructors going into schools; not for the purpose of toting for business, but to talk to young ones from their standpoint. I have given you a few wee scenarios that have made you think. I am in a position to do that, because I have the experience. I am not making those scenarios up. When I am talking to someone about motorcycling, I can outline scenarios of me falling off a motorbike, and, if I had not been wearing protective clothing, I would not be here talking to you today. That is the sort of thing that we propose: we have literature that we are looking at for the instructors to use in-house; and we want instructors to be used in a better way as regards education for younger people.

You may be familiar with the Risk Avoidance Danger Awareness Resource (RADAR). We had suggested that some instructors might want to volunteer their services to help out with that. We have handed out the instructions, we have handed out the contact details and so on to do that. We would be doing that for nothing, by the way. We will not get any remuneration for it. Those are the kinds of positive things that we want to do, but there is an awful lot more to do, and that is public education — not just of young people but of the older people. I would seriously think about an MOT for drivers. Why not? If we are talking about safety, that is what we want to do; we want to make sure that mediocre drivers are made better and good drivers are made better drivers. We also want to be able to identify the people who should not be on the road for certain reasons; that is, because they are blind. It is as simple as that.

I asked a pertinent question to a representative of the PSNI at one of the road safety meetings. We have been banging on that before anybody gets a licence or renews their licence after 10 years, they should have to provide proper documentation from an optician to say that their eyesight is good. One of the scary statistics that we came across several years ago is that approximately one in four people is night blind. We have harped on to several Ministers about that — Minister Poots comes to mind, and I remember being on the radio with him in Comber to discuss that. I do not know how long ago that was. If you knew that your taxi driver was night blind, would you get in the car with him? If there is big sign on the back of his head that says, "I am night blind", and you come out of a restaurant at 10.00 pm and want to go home, would you get in the car with him? Of course you would not. I am being facetious, but there are people who are blind because they do not wear their glasses or contact lenses when they are driving. They got their licences years ago, and their eyesight has deteriorated with age because they are working with computers or whatever the case might be. Their eyesight is so bad that they are nearly on top of the sign before they realise that it is there. There are also those who are night blind who legally should not be driving as they cannot see where they are going. It is as simple as that. Nothing is being done about that.

Cathal used to be the Chair of the Committee and will be familiar of the different scenarios down through the years. It is interesting that quite a number of tragic accidents happen on unlit roads, late at night with a number of people in the vehicle. As I said facetiously to a police representative, "When you examined the dead people, what was their eyesight like?" The answer was that you cannot do that. I said, "Yes; exactly. So why not do it before they are dead?" They might not be dead if they could have seen the give way sign or the stop sign.

I am also an advanced driving instructor — I am not just an approved driving instructor (ADI) — and I have advanced qualifications from other motoring organisations. However, it does not take a policeman or a police investigator to look at the scenario and know how it happened. In many —

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Why do people do the advanced driving test?

Mr Burns: For betterment. Why do people go to university? They do that because they thirst for knowledge and want to better and improve themselves. How much more important would it be to improve yourself as a driver when, let us face it, everyone around this table has more chance of being killed on the roads than on any other form of transport or anything else, apart from being murdered by one of their family members.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): So, people do it voluntarily to improve their driving.

Mr Burns: Yes, they can see the benefit of it. In some cases, your insurance will also go down. I am not trying to put anybody on the spot, but I suggest that every member of the Environment Committee should take some advanced driving lessons and see how they rate and the things that they need to work on.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): It is a challenge.

Mr Burns: It is, but why not do that? In order to legislate, surely the people who legislate should be in an authority that is higher than the legislation. If we were taking about the medical profession, a total layperson would know nothing about brain surgery and would need to talk to somebody who knows about it. Having talked to the people who know about brain surgery, as legislators, we could bring forward legislation to try to improve it. In a like manner, why not do that with advanced driving. At the end of the day, it is totally confidential, and Cathal will not be shown on YouTube going around a roundabout the wrong way, in the wrong gear. That type of thing does not happen. It is totally confidential, and it is of benefit to everybody.

People who break the speed limit, but not by too much, are given the opportunity to go on a classroom course. My insurance broker confided in me that he had been on one recently, and he asked me to convey his appreciation to the chap who conducted it, who I happen to know and who happens to be an advanced driving instructor and a motorbike instructor. He said that he had gone there not wanting to be there but had come out realising that there were an awful lot of things that he did not know. One of the things was speed limits. In this country, people think that the speed limit on a rural road is 50 mph or 45 mph or 40 mph when the speed limit is 60 mph. So, you overtake them at 60 mph, and they have the horn on and are flashing the lights at you as if you are doing something wrong.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Or, more likely, they go at 80 mph.

Mr Burns: Or they go at 80 mph, in which case they end up in a tree at some stage.

Mrs Overend: Can I come back to the MOT idea? How often do you think that needs to be done, if that is a serious proposal?

Mr Burns: Why not do it when the licence is due for renewal, every 10 years? Personally speaking, I think that if you get a car checked every year, there is no reason why not. The old saying is, "The most dangerous nut in a car is the one behind the wheel". That is an old, old saying. I am just showing my age. So, why do we not have some sort of MOT? What we have suggested is that you do not want to be hammering people with legislation and have people saying, "Oh no, I will have to do a driving test every year". We are not talking about a driving test. We are talking about a driver assessment. We take them out. If you find someone who is an absolute lunatic, the first thing that you will do is ask them to read a number plate. If they cannot read a number plate, you will not take them out in the car, in which case you say, "I am sorry, we cannot take you out". If they pass that, and they have a proper licence, you take them out in the car, see how they drive and you give them recommendations or let them ask questions such as, "What is an advanced stop line?" I will then say, "I will bring you to an advanced stop line and show you what an advanced stop line is", if you get my drift. When a person applies to renew their licence after 10 years, they will have forgotten an awful lot of things in 10 years and learnt very little.

Mrs Overend: Do you think that the driver should pay for that assessment or should government help to pay for it? You guys will make money out of it, I suppose.

Mr Burns: Forget about the money. I hate to hear money being mentioned. We are talking about safety here.

Mrs Overend: When you bring in legislation, you have to think about the bigger picture as well.

Mr Burns: Let me answer you in this way. In the Irish Republic, they had a consultation and did all sorts of research, and they reckon that every road death in the Irish Republic costs the state €3 million. Someone who is seriously injured will cost the state in Northern Ireland or wherever a heck of a lot more money than that. Someone who is paraplegic will have to have lifetime care. So, somebody might have to spend £50 — I am throwing that out as a figure; I do not really care what the figure is — or £30 to be signed off as a safe enough driver. Let us face it, a lot of firms do that now with their drivers for insurance purposes. It has to be done for road safety and to keep their insurance right, and government is lagging very much behind by not having that done in the Departments, because it is now part of the EU legislation and there is a duty of care for people who are using vehicles. Even if a secretary does not use her vehicle for business, if her boss says, "Will you put that letter in the post on the way home today?", right away she is doing business, and, if she is in a serious road traffic collision, she could take her Department to court under EU legislation. So, we should think about advanced driving or additional driving every 10 years or whatever to make sure that people are up to standard. One of the first things that you will find out is whether they are blind, but you will also find out whether they know and understand the new things that have come in.

I will give you a wee example very quickly. Over the past two years — do not quote me on the two years — or so, various pedestrian crossings have come in. In fact, there is one not too far away from Stormont. In the old days, we had a zebra crossing, which everybody is familiar with, and a pelican crossing, which is the one you go up to and press the button. We now have a toucan crossings, as in the big bird with the coloured beak that advertises a certain black brew that is distributed in many pubs. We also have the puffin crossing, which is just down the road at Kings Road, which was the third one that came into existence. One came into existence in Ballysillan, and nobody knew what it was all about. They just went and pressed the button and walked across. So, it is a completely different system. The vast majority of motorists do not know what they are looking at. When you ask a motorist about traffic lights, they will tell you the wrong sequence of how the lights operate. They do not understand the difference between a traffic light that controls a road junction and a pedestrian crossing that is controlled by traffic lights. They are handled in two different ways. I hope that this is food for thought.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): As long as you are not colour-blind, and you stop when you see a red light, that is the main thing.

Mr Burns: There are many aspects of education to make sure that people understand and can do those things.

Mrs Overend: Do you think that the driving instructor should be given the responsibility of recommending a driver for further lessons or that they are OK, or should they go through a formal test every 10 years?

Mr Burns: It is not necessary to test someone. To be honest, the problem with testing is that it tests somebody for 30 or 40 minutes on a given day when the traffic could be completely dead. It is not intense enough. You go to a roundabout, which might be empty, and you could be asked to turn left. On an empty roundabout, a blind person — I am not being facetious by saying that; you understand where I am coming from — could make that left turn. It is not particularly difficult. A five-year-old could turn a steering wheel. However, if someone is brought to different roundabouts, scenarios, road conditions and things like that, you find out whether a person can drive.

My mother-in-law is in her 80s and is still driving. She is not the best, but she is still driving. She came up with a very good saying: the problem with our roads is that there are too many car users and not enough car drivers. The driving test has let through people who are all right, but the problem is that they do not improve with age; they get worse with age because new legislation comes in. People who were taught in a car without an anti-lock braking system do not understand the principle of that system. They think that an anti-lock braking system is going to help them on ice, but, unfortunately, it does not.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I am just aware of the time —

Mr Burns: I understand.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): We have two more presentations coming up.

Mr Boylan: Thank you very much, Tom. Here is the reality: people are tested on the day. It is like an MOT car test or anything else. I do not know about going down the route of testing people after 10 years, because it could be the same thing; they could do well on the day. It is true that people really start to learn how to drive when they are on their own and they go out on different roads. Doing the test should be about a driver being ready and having the ability to take that test on the day. It was interesting that you mentioned the holding of a licence for a year. Some people, especially some rural people who are used to driving tractors, could do the driving test after six lessons and pass it because they have experience. What do you have to say about the proposals in the Bill about having a licence for a year?

Mr Burns: Scrap it. It is absolutely nonsensical. As you stated, there are people with good driving attributes. Why should they be held back for a year? Why talk about a year? If you are going to talk about anything, you should be talking about the number of driving lessons, i.e. hours. It is not about weeks, months or years; it is about hours behind the wheel. Anybody can hold a licence for 12 months and do a one-hour driving lesson. The fact that they have held a licence for 12 months does not mean that they are going to be ready for their driving test.

Mr Boylan: You talked about a lot of scenarios. Some of the stuff you brought forward was very entertaining. The reality is that you have to factor in collisions — we have to call them collisions because the accident issue has been taken away by the very fact of behaviour. You have driver behaviour and speed, and maybe you have drink-driving. Those are still the main issues. Given your experience, do you feel that there is anything else that we could bring forward in the Bill to address those major issues?

Mr Burns: Well, we are totally in favour of the 45-mph limit being scrapped. We have always said that we should get rid of it. This has been on record for years. It is nonsensical. We want to be able to teach people to drive at 60 mph and 70 mph. That means that when they do 60 mph, it is not the first time that they have done it. Plus, we will get them to do high-speed braking. So, instead of doing around 25 mph when you do the emergency stop, as the test is at the moment, we — at least, driving instructors who are doing the job properly — will teach people to brake from high speeds and also to feel how anti-lock braking systems work. It is important that you understand how an anti-lock braking system works and the things that it will not help you with, because sometimes braking is a no-no; you cannot brake or your braking has to be very delicate. Those are the sorts of things that are beneficial with that.

We are not convinced that the minimum age of 16 and a half will have any benefits whatsoever. It is more legislation. It is totally out of sync with the mainland and with the Irish Republic. Nothing has been given to us to prove otherwise. As I said, the scenario of passengers proving who they are, what age they are, what their relationship is with the driver, and so on, is the road to no town as regards enforcement. It is not going to happen, particularly, as you say, in the country. How often will police be in the area to stop a car at 3.00 am with four people in it and ask, "What is your relationship?", "Where is your licence?" and that type of thing. It is just not going to happen. So, there is no point legislating for something that looks good on paper but where enforceability is a waste of time. Those are the main ones; the minimum age of 16 and a half, the year's learning period and that.

The other aspects of it include one part of the legislation that we have not even mentioned, which is wearing a helmet on a quad bike. We actually said that we do not see why that legislation has not been passed on to trikes. That does not really make sense, because a quad is actually more stable than a trike. Legislation says that you must wear a helmet on a motorcycle, which has two wheels. On a trike, which is a bit like what Billy Connolly shoots about on, you do not need to wear a helmet. That would continue under the proposed legislation, but somebody using a quad, a four-wheeled motorbike, out on the road would have to wear a helmet. Why is there not parity?

If we are talking about safety, I know from experience that a helmet saves your life. I can say categorically that, had I not been wearing a safety helmet, I would not be here today. A chunk the size of my hand was taken out of it. If a chunk that size had come out of my brain, I would not be speaking to you today.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): You said that it should be the hours of lessons that count. The log book is supposed to say that you have done so many hours of various aspects of driving.

Mr Burns: Well, currently, we have a log book for compulsory basic training (CBT), which some instructors ignore even though it is a legal requirement. This has been placed before PSNI. It has been documented that the Department has been told, etc. Everybody wants to put their heads in the sand and pretend that it is not happening. I could tell you where to go to buy a CBT certificate. The police have been informed about that. You can buy a CBT certificate for £65 and not spend any time doing any training whatsoever on a motorcycle. This has been ongoing since 2011, when a gentleman was standing outside the City Hall selling these certificates to people at a scooter rally. They were all going out riding their bikes illegally, because they had full car licences but no motorbike licences. They had to have CBT certificates. The gentleman was standing there selling them for £100 before they went out on the rally. These things are happening.

If anybody thinks that there are no bad guys among driving instructors, that all driving instructors are good guys and that no doctors are Dr Shipman, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. There are bad people in all professions. The problem is that once you get into log books, there will be people who would be happy to sign off someone who has not properly completed it, simply speaking, for monetary gain or favoritism because they know somebody in the family who says that they have been talking their son or daughter out and asks them to sign it off etc. The system, as it is, is not watertight. We cannot see it being watertight for cars.

Lord Morrow: Very briefly, I want to raise two things. Tom, you say that you disagree with the age reduction for learners to 16 and a half. You agree that the age should remain 17. What about the other end of the age spectrum? Does there come a time in our lives, an age or a stage, when we should not drive on these busy, cluttered roads?

Mr Burns: No. In my experience some people are better drivers at 70 than others who are 20 or 30.

Lord Morrow: So if you are 120 or 206, that is fine.

Mr Burns: If you are capable of driving, you are capable of it; if you can do it, you can do it. Age has no relevance to it. It has to do with ability.

Lord Morrow: But it has when you are starting off. You have said here that age has no relevance, but you are opposed to it at 16 and a half.

Mr Burns: What is the point of 16 and a half? The point of the legislation is to make our roads safer. Lowering the age to 16 and a half will not make our roads safer. Someone at 102 years of age, who still has a driving licence, may still drive capably and safely. Driving safely is the issue, not age.

Lord Morrow: But at age 16 and a half, you do not think that people could drive safely.

Mr Burns: No, it is not a matter of that. There is no reason or rationale to lower the age to 16 and a half. If you are going to drop to 16 and a half, why not just just drop it to 16? Because at 16 years of age — most of the Committee will not know this — I teach disabled people who are entitled to a licence.

Lord Morrow: Recently, after another road fatality, the police were asked the question: what is the cause of all these road fatalities? The senior police officer who answered the question gave four reasons. If my memory serves me right, he said that not wearing seatbelts was one; speeding was two; driving while under the influence, three; and then he said not taking due care. To me, not taking due care is wrapped up in the other three, because not wearing a seatbelt is not taking care. Is it not? Driving while under the influence and, of course, speeding. How do you —

Mr Burns: No. You could fit due care and attention in with that, but the reason that it is set aside is because the person did not die because he was not wearing a seatbelt, the driver was speeding, or the driver was under the influence of drink or drugs. The reason the person died was because the driver was fiddling about with their MP3 player and did not see the pedestrian walk out in front of them — due care and attention. The person may have driven through a green light thinking that green means go, but did not see a cyclist coming off the pavement, and killed that cyclist. The lorry driver who makes a left turn and does not check his blind spots to make sure that a cyclist is not present — that is the reason for the green boxes, so that cyclists are not in his blind spot and, as he turns, he crushes the cyclist. I have seen a Mini crushed and wrapped around an old lamppost because a lorry driver turned, as he needed to, and the Mini was actually bent around the lamppost. I should say that, in the past number of years, I have been in attendance at five RTCs where people have died.

Lord Morrow: I think that the statistics that we have — not for this year, for we would not have those yet, but for the previous year — show that alcohol-related accidents account for a very high proportion of road deaths.

Mr Burns: I spoke to your member Sandra here about one of the things that we proposed in the booklet. I do not want to burst someone else's thunder, but there are a number of scenarios, and one that we have suggested we call "the morning after". I have been interviewed on radio, and we have had the PSNI on as well. It is something that people in general do not think about. Forget about drugs, because dear knows how long drugs last in your system, but if you have had alcohol, it takes approximately two hours for the first unit to get out of your bloodstream. It takes a further hour for any other units of alcohol to leave it. On one occasion, a student got into the car with me in the Holylands at 9.00 am. Had I lit a match, the car would have exploded. So at that point I asked: were you drinking last night? Yes, she said, I was. I asked what she had consumed, and she went through this rhyme and reason of consume. Then I asked the more important thing: at what time did you stop drinking? She replied: 3.00 am. So that was only six hours previously. Now, having consumed a bottle of Jack Daniel's and whatever other things she had chosen, this person thought that she was going to get into a car and drive it. Needless to say, she was sent back home again to go to bed.

So the problem is that people do not realise that the recommendation — this is something that members could take into consideration — is that even if you have had only a glass of wine, you should leave a minimum of 12 hours before you jump into a car. That is the recommendation. The problem is the morning after, and that is where quite a lot of the convictions take place and why you have quite a lot of RTCs in the morning, particularly in rush-hour traffic. The Scandinavians have come up with something; they have focused on the brain. They say that when people commute — that is, they are on the same journey every day — they switch off the portion of the brain that warns you of danger. This has been scientifically proven. I have been saying for years that people drive in a daydream. You are sitting in a daydream and you have had a few drinks the night before, but 12 hours has not elapsed. You probably have not slept very well, and you have some alcohol in your system. It is a recipe for disaster because you are going to crash into the vehicle in front which suddenly brakes, because you have not left enough braking distance. So, it may not be an RTC in which people are seriously injured or killed, but it is still on the books as being an RTC, and it means that other people are held up, production is held up and the economy loses money. Every time there is a blockage on the motorway, the economy in Belfast loses an enormous amount of money due to an RTC.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Thank you very much. It was a very interesting conversation.

Mr Burns: Remember, I did not use the word "challenge" about advanced driving; you used it.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I may take you up on that.

Mr Burns: Seriously, why not? You have nothing to lose; you have everything to gain. You will not even be charged anything. We will do you special MLA rates, because there is no money in Stormont. If you want to do the test, it is a different thing because that is out of our hands. In that case, you are charged, but you can do a bit of advanced training to see what it is all about. To be perfectly honest with you, people who do it thoroughly enjoy it. As I say to people, even if you only learn one thing, you will have learnt something.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I know that I am not confident reversing. I have never done good reversing.

Mr Burns: You need to buy one of those cars that does it for you. If you get a pay rise, you will be able to get one of those cars where you can just press the button and let it reverse for you.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I can never do it straight.

Mr Burns: It is quite an easy technique, believe me.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Thank you very much indeed.

Mr Burns: You are very welcome. Thank you very much for your time.